GlasgowRangers said:By the way, 6 months delivery time is correct Bowfer my sheep shagging brother.
Again, not according to my lease company, my buckfast guzzling friend.:icon_thumright:
GlasgowRangers said:By the way, 6 months delivery time is correct Bowfer my sheep shagging brother.
Indeed. In response to a similar question in last weeks auto express mail page, a VW spokesman said exactly the same to somone who was frustrated in not being able to order a VW Golf with that engine - in this instance they were originally told 20 weeks then couldnt order it as all. Hence VW reintroduced the 1.6FSI for the Golf 'for customers for who waiting isn't an option.'treblesykes said:demand for the 1.4 tfsi is higher than production, VW have had to reintroduce the 1.6 engine to meet demands for smaller engines due to waiting list for the tfsi. hence the 6 month waiting list ,.
6 months, albeit is not ideal, I can accept as being likely to be accurate for this engine in the A3.
mcc49 said:Glad to see you're liking the engine, I got a A3 1.4 S-Line in phantom black on order and I am counting down the days till it arrives!
bowfer said:Again, not according to my lease company, my buckfast guzzling friend.:icon_thumright:
PNH80 said:Congrats on the car, looks great and i've heard great things about the 1.4 engine. My 2.0T Quattro has been very economical so far, so i can only imagine what the 1400 is like.
Congrats on the car too. Looks lovely and from what I have heard a very nice engine. But I need to know how in the hell PNH80 reckons that the 2.0T is economical. Did you run a V8 range rover before you got it?
smee said:PNH80 said:Congrats on the car, looks great and i've heard great things about the 1.4 engine. My 2.0T Quattro has been very economical so far, so i can only imagine what the 1400 is like.
Congrats on the car too. Looks lovely and from what I have heard a very nice engine. But I need to know how in the hell PNH80 reckons that the 2.0T is economical. Did you run a V8 range rover before you got it?
Well... I guess it does depend what you call economical and how you drive. I'm not measuring the car by diesel and smaller engine standards. I'm comparing it to similar performance cars etc. My last car was a BMW 325ci and that was worse on economy by a distance. I've only had the car a matter of weeks though so we'll see.
Initial thoughts...The first weekend i collected the car, drive 250 miles home, probably another 10 that night, around another 30 the next day and commuted to work and back twice (approx 10 miles)....on a tank of petrol without pushing the bottom redline. For a 2.0 turbo 4WD i thought this was good. Maybe others would disagree!
smee said:PNH80 said:But I need to know how in the hell PNH80 reckons that the 2.0T is economical. Did you run a V8 range rover before you got it?
Had a 2.0T quattro for a few days about 2 months ago and averaged 19 mpg But it certainly went well
I agree.rwest said:That little A3 looks fantastic - will be interesting to see how people get on with the 1.4T engine. Although it's small, its power output is higher than the previous model with the 1.6 which produced 102(?)bhp or there abouts.
125bhp from this 1.4T is the same output as the 1998 model A4 1.8. Bet it'll be really ecenomical too.
Yes, that's my understanding too, although possibly the lowest power version might be the same as in the A3 (ie. turbo only).Matt said:Think VW only offer the 1.4 TSI which is the Supercharged and Turbocharged version.
golf said:He's from Aberdeen, those lads are never shy of letting their opinions be heard.
h5djr said:And what mpg are we expecting from this 'Brilliant Little Engine'?
Definitely.mcc49 said:Yea we're talking about the 1.4TFSI, the diesel sounds good with its +100lb of torque but its only over a very small rev band (1750-2500rpm), so you will be riding a surge of low down torque and will have to shift up whereas the petrol has a peak torque over 1500-4200rpm meaning it reaches peak pulling power lower down the rev's and continuing all the way to >4000rpm.
mfspen said:Definitely.
In fact the 140 diesel I had produced hardly any torque until 2000rpm, so you were forever swapping cogs to make any progress. Precisely what a diesel is supposed to avoid !
Yes, probably true.Ess_Three said:But...
Out on the open road, once rolling, I'm struggling tosee how a 1.4 TFSI will keep a 140 PD at bay.
Indeed.Ess_Three said:Now, the 170 PD...that IS a cracking engine...
mcc49 said:Yea we're talking about the 1.4TFSI, the diesel sounds good with its +100lb of torque but its only over a very small rev band (1750-2500rpm), so you will be riding a surge of low down torque and will have to shift up whereas the petrol has a peak torque over 1500-4200rpm meaning it reaches peak pulling power lower down the rev's and continuing all the way to >4000rpm.